White House Blasts Pelosi Over Stock Trades, Pushes for Congressional Ban

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt on Tuesday assailed former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi over her and her husband’s reported stock transactions, arguing they underscore why a ban on congressional stock trading must be enacted. Leavitt read aloud a variety of deals she characterized as “outperforming Wall Street” and claimed Pelosi’s wealth growth is emblematic of the problem the reform seeks to fix.

Leavitt was blunt: “The reason this idea—to ban members of Congress from trading stocks—is even being considered is because of Nancy Pelosi.” She noted Pelosi earns about $174,000 in salary, yet holds an estimated net worth of $413 million. “In 2024,” Leavitt added, “her portfolio grew 70% — outperforming every major hedge fund and even doubling returns of Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway.”

Leavitt said the president supports public outrage over such disparities. “He doesn’t want to see people enriching themselves off public service and ripping off constituents in the process,” she declared. She also confirmed that conversations with congressional allies are underway about how to move forward with legislation on the issue.

---

The Proposed Ban & Political Dynamics

The push for reform is embodied in legislation championed by Senator Josh Hawley (R‑Missouri), aimed at prohibiting members of Congress—and their spouses—from trading individual stocks while in office. The bill would require public officials to restrict their investments to vehicles such as mutual funds, ETFs, or U.S. Treasury securities, thus minimizing opportunities for conflicts of interest.

An earlier amendment that would have exempted the president from the ban was blocked. Hawley, who opposed that carve-out, later defended his vote by saying the bill’s language applies only to future presidents. The legislation has gained support from House Speaker Mike Johnson (R‑La.) and various Republicans, and some Democrats have signaled openness to the idea.

Though Republicans once tried to require disclosures of Pelosi’s and her husband’s trades in the legislation, that language was defeated by a bipartisan coalition, including Hawley and Senate Democrats.

---

Why Pelosi Is Central to This Debate

Pelosi’s financial holdings have long drawn scrutiny. Critics argue that her apparent success in the stock market, especially while holding public office, exemplifies structural problems in how lawmakers can benefit from market movements.

Leavitt’s remarks emphasized the perceived optics: how a public servant with a moderate salary can amass far greater wealth through investments, while constituents struggle with healthcare, housing, and cost-of-living pressures.

By positioning Pelosi at the center of the stock ban debate, the White House is effectively framing the reform as a response to high-profile inequality—not a partisan attack but a structural fix.

---

Challenges & Considerations

While the idea of banning individual stock trades by lawmakers has strong popular appeal, several complications remain:

• Legal and constitutional constraints: Bans on trading may face challenges under constitutional doctrines protecting private property or restricting excessive regulation.

• Enforcement and loopholes: Lawmakers might find indirect ways to benefit from market shifts—through spouse investments, shell entities, or derivatives. Draft legislation must be airtight.

• Political will and partisanship: Even those who support reform may balk at legislation that limits freedom for sitting members, especially as many in both parties are invested in markets or financial sectors.

• Economic unpredictability: Critics argue that attaching strict investment limits to public office may discourage qualified candidates or push them to divest holdings at a loss.

---

What’s Next

Hawley’s bill will likely be debated in congressional committees, and further amendments may arise—potentially watering down prohibitions or adding grandfather clauses. Public pressure and media attention will play essential roles in shaping legislative momentum.

Leavitt has already made clear the White House’s posture: if Congress fails to act, the executive branch may consider alternative policies, oversight measures, or regulatory approaches targeting conflicts of interest.

To many observers, the Pelosi controversy is not just about one individual. It’s a flashpoint in renewed debates about ethics, privilege, and accountability in Washington. If Congress fails to adopt meaningful reform, skepticism over public service and power will only deepen.

Whether the ban becomes law or stalls amid procedural hurdles, the conversation is unlikely to fade — and Pelosi’s role in it ensures that political and media focus will remain sharp for the foreseeable future.